UK: New 'antisemitism' definition says criticism of Israel is now racist. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14933870
In 2016 a group called the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) met in Berlin and decided to redefine 'antisemitism'.

12th December 2016 wrote:Britain will become one of the first countries to use this definition of antisemitism, as agreed last May at a conference of the Berlin-based International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), the prime minister will say in London.

More detailed guidance on this, released by the IHRA in May, said this could include criticisms which target Israel, if this was “conceived as a Jewish collectivity”. It added: “However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

The guidance says it could be considered antisemitic to accuse Jews of being more loyal to Israel or their religion than to their own nations, or to say the existence of Israel is intrinsically racist.


The past year it has been widely reported that the Labour Party is allegedly "antisemitic" because its leader has spoken up for the Palestinians, the more recent case came when the NEC(National Executive Commitee) adopted the new definition of antisemitism except for a couple of examples referring to the Israeli state which led one senior Jewish Labour MP to call the leader of the Labour party..."a fucking antisemite racist".

She also wrote an article in the Guardian(comments disabled) in which she defends her slurs with these rather illuminating sentences:

Margaret Hodge-"I was right to confront Jeremy Corbyn" wrote:How have we got here? Under Jeremy’s leadership, the Palestinian/Israeli conflict has been allowed to infect the party’s approach to growing antisemitism. It appears to have become a legitimate price that the leadership is willing to pay for pursuing the longstanding cause of Palestinians in the Middle East. Because of that, antisemitism has become a real problem in the Labour party.


There it is in black and white, as long as anyone speaks up for the cause of the Palestinians, then that someone is an "antisemite". And unless that becomes law of the land and law of all the parties in the land then we are all apparently "antisemites".

Jeremy and his team have now vowed to take action against the repugnant comments made by this senior Jewish Labour MP as bringing the party and its leader into disrepute is in fact against the rules of the party.

Independent wrote:Jeremy Corbyn vows 'action will be taken' against Labour MP Margaret Hodge who called him a 'f****** antisemite and a racist'
The leader's office said the respected Labour MP's comments and behaviour towards Mr Corbyn were 'unacceptable'

Jeremy Corbyn’s office has vowed “action will be taken” against a respected senior Labour MP who called the party leader a “f****** antisemite and a racist”.

Mr Corbyn’s spokesman said Labour rules forbade MPs from acting in a way that is disrespectful or brings the party into disrepute, and a disciplinary process had been triggered by Dame Margaret Hodge’s accusation.

It comes amid a furious internal row sparked after the party’s ruling executive adopted a new code of conduct that defines antisemitism differently from the more broadly accepted meaning of the word.

Asked about the comments of Dame Margaret – who lost relatives in the Holocaust – Mr Corbyn’s spokesman said: “The behaviour that you are talking about is clearly unacceptable under Labour party parliamentary rules for behaviour between colleagues, and action will be taken over it.

“Of course, all concerns of all MPs need to be discussed and addressed, and Jeremy is always open to discuss that with members of the parliamentary Labour party.”

Asked what measures would be adopted, the spokesman repeated: “Action will be taken.”

The row blew up after Labour’s National Executive Committee, now controlled by Mr Corbyn’s supporters, adopted a new code of conduct.

Although the code explicitly states “antisemitism is racism” and is “unacceptable”, it stops short of signing up in full to the definition of antisemitism drawn up by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

Mr Corbyn’s spokesman added the Labour party had instead drawn up a code of conduct which “incorporates, builds on and clarifies” the examples of antisemitism set out, “so that they can be used effectively for a political party disciplinary process”.

The behaviour that you are talking about is clearly unacceptable under Labour party parliamentary rules for behaviour between colleagues, and action will be taken over it

Dame Margaret challenged Mr Corbyn behind the speaker’s chair in the house of commons following a crunch vote on Brexit.

It was reported Dame Margaret told him: “You’re a f****** antisemite and a racist ... You have proved you don’t want people like me in the party.”

Mr Corbyn reportedly told her: “I’m sorry you feel like that.”

A senior Labour source confirmed a confrontation occurred. Dame Margaret has not responded to requests for a comment.

The new code of conduct drawn up by Labour officials in the wake of protests by Jewish groups against antisemitism this year, states criticism of the state of Israel and its policies should not automatically be regarded as antisemitic.

It also makes clear even “contentious” comments on this issue “will not be treated as antisemitism unless accompanied by specific antisemitic content ... or by other evidence of antisemitic intent”.

The code explicitly endorses the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism and includes a list of behaviours likely to be regarded as antisemitic copied word-for-word from the international organisation’s document.

But the code omits four examples from the IHRA list – accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country, claiming Israel’s existence as a state is a racist endeavour, requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations, and comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis.


Labour insists that while the examples are not reproduced word for word, they are covered in the new code, but Jewish community groups condemned the NEC’s decision and warned “on its current trajectory, Labour is failing British Jews and it is failing as an anti racist party”.

A series of Labour MPs publicly vented their fury about the situation and former party leader Ed Miliband said the party should adopt the full definition.

He said: “The argument that it is somehow incompatible with criticising the actions of the Israeli government is wrong.

“The views of the vast majority of the Jewish community are very clear. I would urge the NEC to get on with this at speed.”

Labour MP Ian Austin said the move was “utterly shameful” and added: “I am ashamed to be a member of the Labour Party.”

MP Wes Streeting said: “The leadership were warned of the consequences of today’s NEC decision. They didn’t care.”
Last edited by political on 19 Jul 2018 10:14, edited 3 times in total.
#14933875
More detailed guidance on this, released by the IHRA in May, said this could include criticisms which target Israel, if this was “conceived as a Jewish collectivity”. It added: “However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

The guidance says it could be considered antisemitic to accuse Jews of being more loyal to Israel or their religion than to their own nations, or to say the existence of Israel is intrinsically racist.


It's also hard to tell the difference between Russophobia, a diverse spectrum of negative feelings of Russia, and legitimate criticism levelled against the state of Russia. Anti-Russia sentiment remains fairly strong throughout Europe.
#14933881
ThirdTerm wrote:It's also hard to tell the difference between Russophobia, a diverse spectrum of negative feelings of Russia, and legitimate criticism levelled against the state of Russia. Anti-Russia sentiment remains fairly strong throughout Europe.


That's a good point, I would go as far as saying that Russophobia(or disparaging and racist comments against Slavs in general) is far more widespread than antisemitism certainly in the UK and definitely actively promoted by the higher echelons of British intelligentsia, academics, journalists, politicians, pundits and TV personas.
#14933925
Margaret Hodge wrote:... price that the leadership is willing to pay for pursuing the longstanding cause of Palestinians in the Middle East.

In 2016 the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee conducted an investigation into “Antisemitism in the UK”. In its Report, published in October 2016, it considered definitions of antisemitism and concluded that

“We broadly accept the IHRA definition, but propose two additional clarifications to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse about Israel and Palestine, without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate. The definition should include the following statements:

It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.

It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent."


Chucka Umunna - Labour friends of Israel.

Is Chuka Umunna an anti-Semite?

House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee (2016)

Yvette Cooper (Chair) (Labour)
James Berry (Conservative)
Mr David Burrowes (Conservative)
Byron Davies (Conservative)
Nusrat Ghani (Conservative)
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (Conservative)
Tim Loughton (Conservative)
Stuart C. McDonald (Scottish National Party)
Naz Shah (Labour)
Mr Chuka Umunna (Labour)
Mr David Winnick (Labour)

claiming Israel’s existence as a state is a racist endeavour

" Unless such a claim was informed by hatred to Jews, it would not be antisemitic to assert that as Israel defines itself as a Jewish state and thereby by race, and that because non-Jewish Israelis and non-Jews under its jurisdiction are discriminated against, the State of Israel is currently a racist endeavour."

Opinion on the effect of the Government’s decision to “adopt” the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism.

Hugh Tomlinson QC.
Last edited by ingliz on 19 Jul 2018 08:44, edited 1 time in total.
#14933945
layman wrote:Title of this s thread is misleading. Even the op quote makes clear legitimate criticism of Israel is not considered anti Semitic in this definition.


The definition of the IHRA is not something that can be deemed clear and that puts (il)legitimate criticism within a very wide spectrum, the wider the spectrum the easier for it to be manipulated to silence legitimate critics. If one needed any further evidence of such a manipulation one need look no further than the treatment Jeremy Corbyn is receiving; unless you are of the opinion that he has expressed illegitimate criticisms when speaking up for Palestinians.
#14933958
layman wrote:Why does it insist on this so fervently?

Because the IHRA definition smuggles in anti-Zionism, in the guise of antisemitism, as a means of protecting the Israeli state and thus western foreign policy.


:)
#14933964
layman wrote:Corbyn and the Labour Party is making up its own definition which is at odds with the one the British state and all the devolved assemblies use.

Why does it insist on this so fervently?


That is quite misleading, westminster has not adopted the IHRA definition but has amended it itself as ingliz's post above suggests. So has the Labour Party and it has done so for the reason it has stated, to make internal administration regarding this matter more clear and more efficient. A wide and broad definition would create a mess, it would make the definition subject to interpretation and be used to bog the party dow as it is being used already. Are you suggesting that Labour should support a definition that would prevent them from supporting the Palestinians? and are you implying that Corbyn is an antisemite and that the slurs and accusations levelled against him are ok? Is this the kind of censorship that you are willing to normalise in the UK?

Also how is it "at odds"? :eh:
#14934589
political wrote: 12th December 2016 wrote:Britain will become one of the first countries to use this definition of antisemitism, as agreed last May at a conference of the Berlin-based International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), the prime minister will say in London.

More detailed guidance on this, released by the IHRA in May, said this could include criticisms which target Israel, if this was “conceived as a Jewish collectivity”. It added: “However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

The guidance says it could be considered antisemitic to accuse Jews of being more loyal to Israel or their religion than to their own nations, or to say the existence of Israel is intrinsically racist.
I don't see how Israel could be considered to be anything but an ethnocentric apartheid state , in light of this recent development https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/19/israel-adopts-controversial-jewish-nation-state-law . Even if I were to self identify with being a socialist Zionist , I still could not justify such ethnic nationalism at the expense of the equal human rights of the Palestinian population . If this be anti-Semitic to state this truth , then even a number of opposition parties in Israel , for an example this one
, would by this token likewise be deemed anti-Semitic .
#14934669
Labour MPs and peers plan to defy Corbyn on antisemitism definition

Members to vote on changing code of conduct agreed by national executive committee

Image
Labour MP Luciana Berger speaks during a protest against antisemitism in the Labour party in Westminster in March. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

Labour MPs and peers are planning an extraordinary joint act of defiance against Jeremy Corbyn and the party’s ruling national executive committee (NEC) that would see them incorporate the full internationally accepted definition of antisemitism into their own official rulebooks, putting them directly at odds with the party leadership.

The moves by Labour members of both Houses of Parliament look set to fuel an already explosive row that erupted last week, after the NEC refused to ditch a controversial new code of conduct on antisemitism that many MPs and peers say does not go far enough.

In the hope of forcing the NEC and party leadership into a U-turn, Labour MPs will on Monday push an emergency motion at a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party that would, if passed, amend its rulebook to include an obligation on members “to accept and abide by the full International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism, including all of its accompanying examples”.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more

Separately, the Observer has learned that Labour members of the House of Lords will be asked to vote when parliament returns in September on a motion to alter the Labour peers group handbook so that it also includes reference to the need for members to abide by the full IHRA definition.

In an email, the chair of Labour members of the House of Lords, Toby Harris, said he was sure colleagues would share his “deep concern at the Labour party’s failure fully to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism”.

He said that “following consultation with the Labour Lords leadership … I will be proposing from the chair that we adopt the IHRA definition and its associated examples – unamended – into our rules [the Labour peers group handbook]”.

The new party code of conduct has been widely criticised because it fails to incorporate all the examples of what constitutes antisemitism that are listed alongside the IHRA definition.

The examples omitted from the new Labour code agreed by the NEC include accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel than their own nations, claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour and comparing Israeli actions with those of the Nazis.

The decision by the NEC last Wednesday to adopt the new code came despite complaints and warnings from members of the parliamentary Labour party and Jewish organisations urging the ruling body to include the full list of examples.

The emergency motion to be submitted to the PLP has been tabled by the Jewish Labour MPs Louise Ellman and Ruth Smeeth. They are backed by another Jewish member, Luciana Berger. Berger, parliamentary chair of the Jewish Labour movement, said she expected the motion would be accepted for debate and voted upon when time allowed. “Its purpose is to demonstrate the strength of feeling in the parliamentary party. It is unfathomable that we find ourselves in this position as a party,” she said.

After the NEC decision, Labour minister and ex-chair of the public accounts committee Margaret Hodge confronted Corbyn in the House of Commons and accused him of being “an antisemitic racist”. She is now the subject of a party investigation.

A Labour party spokesperson said that while the code had been adopted, it would be subject to further discussion in the light of strong feelings expressed: “The NEC upheld the adoption of the code of conduct on antisemitism but, in recognition of the serious concerns expressed, agreed to reopen the development of the code, in consultation with Jewish community organisations and groups, in order to better reflect their views.”

On Saturday night the Labour MP Wes Streeting said he believed the NEC had taken the approach it had so that it would be easier for the party to reject complaints made against members over antisemitism.

“It is hard to draw any other conclusion than that this is intended to make it easier to let more people off the hook, whether they be new members of the party or senior figures within it.”

On Saturday, in an interview with the Guardian, Eddie Izzard urged Corbyn to deal promptly with the issue. The comedian, who recently won a seat on the NEC, said Labour risked not being ready to attack the government and its Brexit plans because of infighting over antisemitism.

“We shouldn’t be getting caught in this antisemitic definition row,” Izzard said. “If there is ever a time to adopt the full IHRA definition and be in step with the Jewish community, the rabbis, go with the mainstream, rather than say we wish to adjust, that meeting was the time. And we didn’t.”

He said Labour had agreed to reopen discussions with Jewish groups, but that he regretted that a new code of conduct had been approved despite warnings from Jewish groups about the omission of some of the working examples from the IHRA.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... definition?

The present that keeps on giving, apparently...
Why can't they solve this problem once and for all ?
#14934898
Corbyn should sack the scum that serve Israel over their own party.

lol at Ter being an Israel-firster even when it includes treason within a political party in the UK. The "problem" will be solved as soon as those Labour MPs who serve Israel are shown the door.





As Jews, we reject the myth that it's antisemitic to call Israel racist
In such urgent times, it is more important than ever to distinguish between legitimate critiques of unjust Israeli policies and ‘hostility to Jews as Jews’

A worldwide coalition of Jewish groups has issued a joint statement condemning attempts to stifle criticism of Israel with false accusations of antisemitism.

The statement, which 40 Jewish groups from 15 different countries have signed, could not have been more timely. In the UK, the Labour Party is currently under pressure to adopt the full guidelines accompanying a definition of antisemitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

Labour adopted the 38-word definition long ago. But the guidelines with it include examples of antisemitism, two of which – both connected to criticism of Israel – are highly controversial.

Firstly, they suggest that "claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour" could itself be racist. Secondly, they claim that "applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected of any other democratic nation" is potentially antisemitic.

Since being adopted by the UK government in December 2016, these guidelines have already been used to target organisations campaigning for Palestinian rights. Supporters of Israel have called on government to stop the annual “Israeli Apartheid Week” on university campuses on the grounds that it breaches the IHRA.

But genuine anti-racist principles surely lead us to criticise Israel for its many discriminatory policies, whether its segregated road network, its dual justice system, or the “Jewish nation state” bill passed on Wednesday, which entrenches ethnic inequality in law.

Perversely labelling critics of this racism “antisemitic” also silences Palestinians who object to Israel’s historic and ongoing takeover of their land.

Meanwhile, the idea of “double standards” has been used to attack the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Supporters of Israel claim that unless all human rights-abusing nation states are boycotted, there must be some antisemitic motivation lurking behind calls for BDS.

This deliberately ignores three points. Firstly, Palestinians have collectively called for solidarity through BDS until their fundamental human rights are upheld, including the right of return for refugees.

Secondly, via military, financial and diplomatic support, our governments are deeply complicit in Israel’s violations, whereas this is not the case with, say, the Syrian government’s crimes.

Thirdly, precisely because of this direct involvement, implementing a boycott strategy here can make real impact, just as the boycott of South Africa – on which BDS is modelled – helped to bring an end to apartheid there.

BDS is indeed working, as worried pro-Israel groups themselves acknowledged last year. Due to the success of the movement, a global response by Israel’s supporters is in full swing, with legislation to repress the boycott initiated in many countries.

What is happening in the UK is but one example of attempts to redefine antisemitism to include criticism of Israel. In the US, the Antisemitism Awareness Act does the same.

As Jews who support the BDS movement, which is based on universal human rights principles and opposition to all racisms, we find it distressing that some imply Jewish communities are unanimous in their support of the IHRA.

On the contrary, we believe that by dangerously conflating opposition to Israel’s discriminatory policies with anti-Jewish racism, IHRA politicises and harms the fight against antisemitism as well as the struggle for justice for Palestinians.

We take the threat of antisemitism seriously. Indeed, from our own histories we are all too aware of the dangers of increasingly racist governments and political parties. The rise in antisemitic discourse and attacks worldwide is part of that broader trend.

In such urgent times, it is more important than ever to distinguish between legitimate critiques of unjust Israeli policies and “hostility to Jews as Jews“, as leading expert Brian Klug defines antisemitism.

It is profoundly wrong to label the Labour party “antisemitic” for refraining to adopt IHRA guidelines in their entirety. Criticising Israeli policies – or indeed the tenets of Zionism – must be allowed to be part of political debate. That’s why Labour’s national executive committee has found aspects of the IHRA guidelines wanting.

Leading lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC has criticised the IHRA on these grounds. Civil liberties champions Liberty recently cautioned public bodies that it could constitute a threat to freedom of expression. Tellingly, even US lawyer Kenneth Stern – a key figure in crafting early incarnations of the IHRA – has warned that it could “encourage punishments of legitimate expressions of political opinion”.

Last weekend, two Palestinian teenagers in Gaza were killed by an Israeli air strike. Since the beginning of the Great Return March protests on 30 March, more than 130 people have been killed – including 25 children. These are just the most recent examples of why we call for a non-violent boycott of Israel until it complies with international law.

With Jewish and Israeli organisations across the globe that have varying approaches to the BDS movement, we stand united against harmful definitions of antisemitism and together for human rights and the freedom to protest.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/an ... 58601.html




#14934954
It's important to make the denial of one particular holocaust illegal, and it's equally important to have laws limiting what you can say against the same group who remind everyone of their victimhood in that particular atrocity.

The rest of the world can only look on with amazement as one particular group sets itself up for tribunal victory and unique privilege once again. Islamaphobia? Bring 'er on! Racism and police brutality against colored people? Whatever. But we must defend the colonizers of Palestine.

Keep on writing the songs that make the whole world sing.
(warning: link leads to soundtrack)

Reality doesn't have a chance against this caliber of propaganda.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 12

Indeed. It is called racism. :lol: But we were d[…]

Is magic being resisted by the selection of a corr[…]

Congratulations. You are wrong. Back to the sam[…]

Is it elitist, if the structure of socialism consi[…]